Search RPD Archives
seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Thu Feb 18 11:49:20 UTC 2016
This is just to inform that the policy was also published on the website:
Seun & Sami - PDWG Co-Chairs
On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 6:58 AM, Andrew Alston <
Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
> In order to make the policy proposal submitted yesterday more readable,
> the policy draft has been rewritten to produce a draft that shows the exact
> final wording without needing to be read in conjunction with the old policy.
> In addition to this, a clarification point was added in section 3.5.1 to
> avoid any ambiguity.
> Please see below for the updated draft which we have submitted to the PDWG
> Soft Landing Overhaul
> a. Andrew Alston, andrew.alston at liquidtelecom.com
> b. Kris Seeburn, seeburn.k at gmail.com
> c. Mark Elkins, mje at posix.co.za
> d. Michele McCann, michele at teraco.co.za
> e. John Walubengo, jwalu at yahoo.com
> Draft Policy Version: 02
> Submission Date: 13 February 2016
> Status: Under Discussion
> Amends: AFPUB-2010-v4-005 (IPv4 soft landing policy)
> 1) Introduction
> At the time when the original soft landing policy was authored, there were
> many unknowns and circumstances that could not be foreseen, and as a result
> of this, the policy in its current
> form may actually damage the interests of the AFRINIC community rather
> than assist it.
> Primary among these, it was not known when the rest of the world would run
> out of IPv4 space, and the adoption rates of IPv6 were also an unknown
> While it is acknowledged that there is a need to ensure that new entrants
> into the IP world may require some small amount of IPv4 space, beyond this,
> further delaying the depletion of
> IPv4 address space may well be holding the region back while the rest of
> the world moves on, leaving Africa at a significant disadvantage moving
> In the original policy replaced by this, the numbers and allocation levels
> were also not based on any fundamental justifications, because of the
> unknowns that existed at the time.
> 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem This proposal still
> maintains a block of space reserved for new entrants, but beyond that, it
> allows for the natural depletion of IPv4
> through standard demand, and hence encourages the uptake of IPv6 in a more
> aggressive manner.
> 3) The Proposal
> This policy (IPv4 Soft Landing), applies to the management of address
> space that will be available to AfriNIC after the current IPv4 pool is
> depleted. The purpose of this document is to ensure
> that address space is assigned and/or allocated in a manner that is
> acceptable to the AfriNIC community especially during this time of IPv4
> 3.1) Policy Documents to be affected
> * IPv4 Allocation Policy
> 3.2) Definitions
> * Local Internet Registry (LIR) - A Local Internet Registry (LIR) is
> an Internet Registry (IR) that
> receives allocations from an RIR and assigns address space to customers
> who use its services. LIRs are generally ISPs and their customers are
> end-users and possibly other ISPs. LIRs must be
> members of an RIR like AfriNIC; which serves the Africa Region and part
> of the Indian Ocean (Comoros, Madagascar, Mauritius, and Seychelles).
> * Existing LIR's - An Existing LIR is a LIR that assigns address
> space to 'end-users' and has already
> been assigned or allocated IPv4 address space by AfriNIC.
> * End User - An End User is an organization that receives
> assignments of IP addresses exclusively
> for use in its operational networks
> * New Entrant - Ether a member of new member that at the time of
> application had no previous
> IPv4 allocations or assignments made to them by AFRINIC, and were not
> holders of legacy IPv4 space or other IPv4 space sourced either through a
> potential transfer market or other RIR.
> * New Entrant Block - A /13 block of IPv4 space, reserved in
> entirety, for allocations of space to
> members of AFRINIC that at the time of application have no previous IPv4
> address allocations. A /13 was chosen based on historical member growth
> numbers within AFRINIC, including a certain
> increase in those allocations to provide sufficient space to allocate to
> new members for a period of 2 years.
> * Additional and Reclaimed Space - All IPv4 address blocks recovered
> from non-paying members,
> as well as all allocations of address space made to AFRINIC by IANA or a
> replacement organisation".
> 3.3) Summary
> This proposal replaces AFPUB-2010-v4-005 with the effect of repealing most
> of the original policy and replacing it with a policy that deals only with
> the final /13 worth of space and new entrants,
> as defined in the definition above.
> 3.4) Current Phase
> The "Current Phase" is the status-quo at the time of the adoption of this
> policy. During this phase, AFRINIC will continue allocating or assigning
> IPv4 address space to LIRs and End Users using current
> IPv4 allocation policies as determined by the community through the policy
> development working group.
> The current phase will continue until the depletion of IPv4 address space
> occurs, with the exception of IPv4 reservations as defined by this and
> other currently in force policies.
> 3.5) New Entrant Specification
> At the time where an application is made that cannot be fulfilled out of
> the AFRINIC pool, with the exclusion of space reserved by this and other
> policies, the only applications for IPv4 space which will be
> further considered by AFRINIC will be for New Entrants. The maximum size
> of a New Entrant allocation will be a /22. New Entrant applications will be
> processed on a first in first out (FIFO) basis, that is to
> say that applications will be processed in the order in which they are
> New Entrant applications with regards to justifications must conform to
> current IPv4 allocation policies as defined by the community.
> 3.5.1) CLARIFICATIONS AND OTHER POINTS
> All space falling under the definition of Additional and reclaimed space,
> as from the time of ratification of this policy, will become part of the
> new entrant block and will be reserved for members who meet
> the New Entrant definition.
> For the sake of clarity, the policy will be triggered by the application,
> however, should an application be declared invalid, further processing may
> continue until once again another application is made that
> cannot be fulfilled.
> In the event of the final application before depletion of all space
> outside of the New Entrant Block being too large to fill from the
> available space, the applicant shall be offered whatever remaining space is
> available as an alternative.
> 4) HISTORY
> 13.02.2016 - Proposal in new form with modifications resubmitted to the
> PDWG Chairs and posted to the mailing list by Andrew Alston
> 12.02.2016 - Proposal in its initial form posted to the mailing list by
> Andrew Alston
> 5) Revision History (for all but the very first draft) Version 1 -
> Modified to show a full text rather than purely amendment text against the
> old policy.
> Section 3.3 was modified to replace the original summary from the old
> policy Section 3.5.1 was renamed to CLARIFICATIONS AND OTHER POINTS, and in
> addition added clarity on the process to trigger the new entrant block
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*
Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD